View Full Version : Counter-Terror Official Says Libya Was Terrorism
XngZeRubicon
09-19-2012, 16:40
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/250377-top-intel-official-libya-attack-was-terrorism-but-not-pre-planned
A senior counterterrorism official in the Administration testified to the Senate today that "last week’s attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was definitely a terrorist attack." Matt Olsen also testified that the "current intelligence U.S. investigators have gathered does not suggest the attack was pre-planned to coincide with the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States."
Except the press is just getting additional information within the past 30 minutes from that same testimony that indicates one of the attackers may have been a member of Al Qaeda, an AQ member who had once been held at Gitmo, and an AQ member who had ties to the financiers of the attack on the US on 9/11//2011.
So I'm trying to figure out how this counterterrorism official can think last week's attack had nothing to do with the anniversary of 9/11?
Correction about source of info about potential AQ individual: Fox says that info is coming from "intel sources." Just not sure what those sources are yet.
Ahhh, a "man caused disaster" - any truth to the rumor that Suzanne Barr, chief of staff for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was part of the investigation team recently sent to Libya and was overheard to ask..."is that an RPG in your pocket or are you happy to see me?"
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/14/more-dhs-employees-come-forward-with-accounts-lewd-conduct-in-wake-suit/#ixzz26xdmoPX2
Because this administration has been so lost that MSM well never report on it. Between infighting, people hired just because their friends or went to school, etc. Their all lost..wait I think they are really stuck on a island.
Why do you think MSM it's pushing this Mitt fund raiser video. It's already been posted.. But it's a fact.
XngZeRubicon
09-19-2012, 18:31
I finally got the name of this alleged AQ participant in the attack (according to CNN and Fox) - Sufman Ben Qumu.
Agree. This administration has trouble finding its own ass with both hands. The fact that this occurred on 9/11 was merely coincidence. Riiiight.
Roll on November.
Their all lost..wait I think they are really stuck on a island.
Well I really hope that one actually does flip over...
XngZeRubicon
09-19-2012, 18:35
Agree. This administration has trouble finding its own ass with both hands. The fact that this occurred on 9/11 was merely coincidence. Riiiight.
Roll on November.
I can't believe anyone - even liberals - in the Administration, in the MSM, or even just private citizens can say with a straight face that it doesn't look like it had anything to do with 9/11. Dig a little and you'll find an agenda I guess. Surely they're not that stupid. But then again.....
I finally got the name of this alleged AQ participant in the attack (according to CNN and Fox) - Sufman Ben Qumu.
Brits have allegedly published DOD file on this guy.
UK Telegraph
April 27, 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/guantanamo-bay-wikileaks-files/8477136/Guantanamo-Bay-detainee-file-on-Abu-Sufian-Ibrahim-Ahmed-Hamuda-Bin-Qumu-US9LY-000557DP.html
XngZeRubicon
09-19-2012, 18:47
I remember the outcry after 9/11/2011 from the public and the press about "how could the intel community have not seen that coming?"
All anyone has to do is take a look on the internet, look at all the social media, look at the conventional press outlets -- and just look at the number of people failing to give the scenario any credence that it was a planned attack in Libya. Not that we know for sure yet, but the number of people who won't even consider it. And this is after the benefit of knowing about September 2011 and the subsequent terrorist attempts.
I guess some don't have an intuitive bone in their bodies. Speaking of intuition, Anderson Cooper says a reliable intel source has told him that Ambassador Stevens reportedly said he felt he was on an AQ hit list and the threat was steadily increasing.
If true, a lot is still not adding up.
It has to be some hateful YouTube vid that caused the murders in Libya - at least that was the dominant narrative spewing from the administration and a bunch of supporters. For the administration to suggest otherwise - would support a measure of culpability on this administration's part. These folks don't seem to accept culpability very well.
What a crock. I'm reminded of the phrase..."a willing suspension of disbelief."
XngZeRubicon
09-19-2012, 19:22
Tonyz, I think your sig line is apropo right about now....
Old Dog New Trick
09-19-2012, 23:11
Hey OP what happened on 9/11/2011? :munchin
I'm sure must have wanted to say 9/11/2001. ;)
Dozer523
09-20-2012, 07:35
I'm sure must have wanted to say 9/11/2001. ;) AND anyone who'd read a Tom Clancy novel shoulda seen that one comin' too. :o
Stargazer
09-20-2012, 14:33
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-administration-airs-ads-in-pakistan-condemning-136174.html?hp=l21
The Obama administration is airing ads on Pakistani television condemning the anti-Islamic film "The Innocence of Muslims," a State Department spokeswoman confirmed Thursday.
"As you know, after the video came out, there was concern in lots of bodies politic, including Pakistan, as to whether this represented the views of the U.S. Government. So in order to ensure we reached the largest number of Pakistanis – some 90 million, as I understand it in this case with these spots – it was the judgment that this was the best way to do it," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters.
I don't agree with these type of measures, well intended or not. I don't see evidence where it has been effective. Perhaps individuals here, know otherwise.
XngZeRubicon
09-20-2012, 21:07
Hey OP what happened on 9/11/2011? :munchin
I'm sure must have wanted to say 9/11/2001. ;)
Good catch, ODNT. Thanks for correcting it.:)
XngZeRubicon
09-20-2012, 21:09
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-administration-airs-ads-in-pakistan-condemning-136174.html?hp=l21
I don't agree with these type of measures, well intended or not. I don't see evidence where it has been effective. Perhaps individuals here, know otherwise.
JMO, but I agree with your assessment it doesn't work.
Old Dog New Trick
09-20-2012, 22:03
JMO, but I agree with your assessment it doesn't work.
Well, it doesn't work after the SHTF. If you want to have a good PSYOPS campaign it's better to get out in front of the issue than chase your tail around after its caught fire. :rolleyes:
I'm surprised (no, I'm not) this administration finally figured out something could go terribly wrong with this film two and half months after it hit its intended target and nearly a week after it went viral in Egypt on FB and twitter. Someone definitely asleep at the wheel in Washington or across town in Virginia. :eek:
MrBox2113
09-21-2012, 06:58
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-administration-airs-ads-in-pakistan-condemning-136174.html?hp=l21
I don't agree with these type of measures, well intended or not. I don't see evidence where it has been effective. Perhaps individuals here, know otherwise.
Yes let us apologize for practicing free speech. We really should be looking at ourselves for the towers, the beheading of children in Jakarta, Thailand, Nigeria crucifying Christians in Egypt and Yemen etc... It's all our fault cause we must have done something to insult them. How dare we.
I must say I'm disgusted.
Billy nailed it here:
Here is my litmus test...
...how many fatal riots erupted over the Piss Christ?
There was a metric fuck-ton of liberal tree huggers lining up to defend that ass-bag and his right to artistic freedom, as well as his first amendment rights. Where is that same crowd now?
The US of A sponsored that fine piece of art work (via a national endowment for the arts grant) and offensive religious art seemed not only acceptable it was even bought and paid for by our tax money.
Now all of the sudden we can't express our artistic freedoms without being accused of being accessories to global strife? Why was it ok for the NEA to pay a grant for some ass face to produce art, but now we need to act mortified that anyone would offend someones religious sensibilities? Offensive christian or Jewish art is ok but not when it comes to the religion of tolerance?
What would happen if that same artist took a picture called the "Piss Koran"?
Would the NEA give me a grant to produce some art?
I am certain I can offend someone on the taxpayers dime...
Like Bob Dylan said, "The times they are a-changin'"
Dozer523
09-21-2012, 07:25
Yes let us apologize for practicing free speech. We really should be looking at ourselves for the towers, the beheading of children in Jakarta, Thailand, Nigeria crucifying Christians in Egypt and Yemen etc... It's all our fault cause we must have done something to insult them. How dare we.
I must say I'm disgusted. I might have a better idea. Let celebrate to the world that we practice free speech. But let's not get free confuse with reckless. Let's define free speech as truthful, and honest. Speech that is neither isn't free.
Yeah, let's look at what goes on in the world and denounce the bad. And lay blame and fault and shame where it is deserved. I double dog dare you.
Someone PLEASE explain to this FOG, How we can wrap this asshole in the First Amendment and swear we will die to defend his rights?
Aren't the assholes who are getting the protesters riled up also claiming thier First Amendment rights to freedom of religion?
And in my best Forrest Gump voice,"And that's all I got to say about that."
(and the crowd goes wild)
Stargazer
09-21-2012, 10:42
Aren't the assholes who are getting the protesters riled up also claiming thier First Amendment rights to freedom of religion
I have read in some instances individuals that were protesting had not viewed the video and were paid. (reported by multiple sources). Also with due respect, I do not believe those who were upset came to protest because of any sense of 'rights' -- but rather as their religion demands. There is no freedom or choice of religion in the eyes of most who protested, for there is only one religion, one prophet.
I have learned many things as a civilian member of military boards, as well as from family members who had served, and those I would call friend who had or do serve. One such element is to view the world beyond my own personal lens. I have to educate myself from their perspective. My first introduction to this, was when I was a member of CinemaMayhem on a Blackhawk Down discussion board. It was a culture shock and I was dumbfounded at the hatred expressed by foreigners towards our soldiers and country. That began my quest to better understand. I think it is dangerous to judge the world by our standards from what I've observed. Truth and honesty -- that is hard to find in a world of many cultures and beliefs.
MrBox2113
09-21-2012, 11:12
This video came out months prior to everything that happened last week and we didn't hear a peep. All this beginning on Septermber 11, 11 years after 2001 was a coincidence? I doubt it.
I'll just quote John Quincy Adams on this.
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE."
" The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force"
Paragrouper
09-21-2012, 17:39
I might have a better idea. Let celebrate to the world that we practice free speech. But let's not get free confuse with reckless. Let's define free speech as truthful, and honest. Speech that is neither isn't free.
Yeah, let's look at what goes on in the world and denounce the bad. And lay blame and fault and shame where it is deserved. I double dog dare you.
Someone PLEASE explain to this FOG, How we can wrap this asshole in the First Amendment and swear we will die to defend his rights?
Aren't the assholes who are getting the protesters riled up also claiming thier First Amendment rights to freedom of religion?
And in my best Forrest Gump voice,"And that's all I got to say about that."
(and the crowd goes wild)
Notwithstanding the rest of the world's definition of 'free speech,' speech does not have to be truthful or honest to be protected. Others may disagree with the content of this movie. I found it stupid and lacking in fact, then again I find many opinions expressed to be stupid and lacking in fact as well. I sometimes find that what others refer to as art, I find offensive. Yet I expect our government to protect their right to absolutely piss me off with their 'free expression.' So they can protect this clown's rights as well.
The Reaper
09-21-2012, 18:02
I might have a better idea. Let celebrate to the world that we practice free speech. But let's not get free confuse with reckless. Let's define free speech as truthful, and honest. Speech that is neither isn't free.
Yeah, let's look at what goes on in the world and denounce the bad. And lay blame and fault and shame where it is deserved. I double dog dare you.
Someone PLEASE explain to this FOG, How we can wrap this asshole in the First Amendment and swear we will die to defend his rights?
Aren't the assholes who are getting the protesters riled up also claiming thier First Amendment rights to freedom of religion?
And in my best Forrest Gump voice,"And that's all I got to say about that."
(and the crowd goes wild)
And who will determine what is truthful and honest?
You? Me? Either of the two gentlemen currently vying for the office of President?
Now come the Thought Police. :rolleyes:
If I make a "Piss Mohammed," will you defend my rights?
TR
I might have a better idea. Let celebrate to the world that we practice free speech. But let's not get free confuse with reckless. Let's define free speech as truthful, and honest. Speech that is neither isn't free.
Yeah, let's look at what goes on in the world and denounce the bad. And lay blame and fault and shame where it is deserved. I double dog dare you.
Someone PLEASE explain to this FOG, How we can wrap this asshole in the First Amendment and swear we will die to defend his rights?
Aren't the assholes who are getting the protesters riled up also claiming thier First Amendment rights to freedom of religion?
And in my best Forrest Gump voice,"And that's all I got to say about that."
(and the crowd goes wild)
And herein lies the rub...the internet is filled with speech, cartoons, caricatures, videos, etc. against Islam, Muslims, and Muhammad. The Muslims that are up in arms in the Middle East right now about this one particular video, could be perpetually so since these real/perceived/imagined slights against their prophet and their religion are everywhere...both prior to and after the posting of this particular video
...Let's define free speech as truthful, and honest. Speech that is neither isn't free....
No. Speech isn't free when you allow persons/entities/organizations external to the US (or in the US) to bully us by their irrational actions or vocal opposition into acceding to their demands/point of view and self-censoring ourselves...
Would you have us muzzle any criticism of Muslims/Islam just because it sends them into a mindless frenzy completely disproportionate to the "offense" each and every time? Once we open this Pandora's Box, what is the "Red Line" that is too much for you/us? And who are the arbiters of truth and honesty? It seems to me, that you would have the collective mob in the Middle East be ours...
I will choose to protect art such as "Piss Christ" and that claptrap that twit with a dream and a video camera cobbled together...free speech isn't so unless we protect all speech, not just the speech that is agreeable to us or conincides with our POV...
Just as the Klan is allowed to spew their hate in the town square or that asshat Toure on MSNBC can put out divisive drivel like the following:
"You notice he said anger twice [this was when Romney had said that President Obama needed to take his campaign of division and anger back to Chicago]. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us. I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization,’”
I don't agree with Toure, the Klan, or a lot of other groups/people and would love to throat punch a few of them, but I am not prepared to censor them because that particular slope is much to slippery to ever climb back up...
Dozer523
09-21-2012, 21:03
And who will determine what is truthful and honest? I'm Jesuit educated. I think truth and honesty are eternal and self-evident.
If I make a "Piss Mohammed," will you defend my rights?
TR No. (But I might pay money to see it)
If I make a "Piss Mohammed," will you defend my rights?
TR
That sounds like a drink - what's it got in it, scotch and pork rinds?
Skelepede
09-21-2012, 23:13
I don't think we should cater to a culture that essentially reacts to a controversial film like toddlers with access to RPGs, and suicide vests. A culture so obsessed with the chastity of their women they find it okay to have sex with goats, or children. Only sociopaths would equivocate being offended by a film with murdering an Ambassador, they are toxic waste, and like all other toxic waste in our society whether it be a rapist, or child molestor they cannot live among us, and have us expect for our culture to survive.
I think truth and honesty are eternal and self-evident.
Dozer,
I agree with a lot of your viewpoints
A lot of them.
However, here is the rub with your post about truth and honesty being "self-evident"...
The Declaration of Independence offers the following statement:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
...and yet the United States of America endorsed slavery for almost a full century AFTER we declared that certain unalienable Rights like Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were unalienable.
It took well over a century before women were allowed to vote.
"Blacks" weren't allowed in the same schools or professional sports until 60-70 years ago.
Self-evident means a lot of things to a lot of people.
The last ten years have hardened my heart. I have been surrounded by savages that cannot wait to remind me of how uneducated I am in the ways of eternal bliss,they can't wait to preach to me about the great things that Islam offers. I may not "get it", but to the true believer, the purity of Islam is self-evident...
I however find myself restricted by regulations from proselytizing. It is ok for a Afghan to openly and publicly offend my ideals, while our own government DEMANDS that I stand there and take it...
...with a smile on my face.
Self-evident? Really?
...I digress: I stand there and take it. I am unclean because I eat bacon.
...cut from a pig
...an animal that wallows in filth
...but Americans dont mind because our culture is also surrounded in filth
We are protecting a corrupt politician that uses colorful speeches as prose, and the blood of American warriors is his punchline and he continues to squander the billions of dollars we pour into his squalid, misguided wasteland of a country all the while speaking ill of our goodwill in front of his countries TV cameras...
And yes, I stand there and take it. Because that is what our country currently asks of me.
We cannot offer our OWN opinion on religion or politics because it may incite these fine people to yet another act of 'green on blue' violence. Hell, we have even church-ed THAT up to sound digestible. Why not call it murder?
"Green on Blue violence" looks better on a power point slide.
"American service member murdered in cold blood by angry Afghan Soldier" just doesn't look good in a mulitmedia presentation.
Is it self-evident that deployed service members remain tight lipped throughout the entire time they are outside of American soil? Or do Americans deserve to be shot in the back by an Afghan because they let an opinion slip within earshot of a local?
Blaming an independent film on the death of an American ambassador is the same as blaming George Bush for the twin towers...
...Mohammad Atta flew a plane into the tower not the President of the United States that, to me, is self-evident
Savages killed an American ambassador that much is self-evident to me as well.
In closing...
I agree with you 100% that the concept that truth and honesty are self evident.
I am simply not convinced that the culture we are dealing with even understands the concepts of truth and honesty.
Respectfully submitted...
BL
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-administration-airs-ads-in-pakistan-condemning-136174.html?hp=l21
I don't agree with these type of measures, well intended or not. I don't see evidence where it has been effective. Perhaps individuals here, know otherwise.
Yeah seems the Pakies don't care once again what the U.S thinks or wants.
Pakistan official offers $100,000 reward for killing of maker of anti-Prophet Muhammad film
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/22/14036172-pakistan-official-offers-100000-reward-for-killing-of-maker-of-anti-prophet-muhammad-film?lite
What is also evident - and has been for some time - is that far too many of our current political leaders and mouth pieces are naive fools, liars, or both.
I haven't bothered to highlight the very last paragraph of this article...it is, to even the most casual, but objective observer...self evident.
WEEKLY STANDARD
THE MAGAZINE
Permanent Spin
OCT 1, 2012, VOL. 18, NO. 03 • BY STEPHEN F. HAYES
For nine days, the Obama administration made a case that virtually everyone understood was untrue: that the killing of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, was a random, spontaneous act of individuals upset about an online video—an unpredictable attack on a well-protected compound that had nothing do to with the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.
These claims were wrong. Every one of them. But the White House pushed them hard.
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, appeared on five Sunday talk shows on September 16. A “hateful video” triggered a “spontaneous protest . . . outside of our consulate in Benghazi” that “spun from there into something much, much more violent,” she said on Face the Nation. “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”
On This Week, Rice said the consulate was well secured. “The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place,” she said, adding: “We had substantial presence with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically two of the Tragically two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function, and indeed there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”
White House press secretary Jay Carney not only denied that the attacks had anything to do with the anniversary of 9/11 but scolded reporters who, citing the administration’s own pre-9/11 boasts about its security preparations for the anniversary, made the connection. “I think that you’re conveniently conflating two things,” Carney snapped, “which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Intelligence officials understood immediately that the attacks took place on 9/11 for a reason. The ambassador, in a country that faces a growing al Qaeda threat, had virtually no security. The two contractors killed in the attacks were not part of the ambassador’s security detail, and there were not, in fact, “many other colleagues” working security with them.
The nature of the attack itself, a four-hour battle that took place in two waves, indicated some level of planning. “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan president Mohammad el-Megarif told National Public Radio. When a reporter asked Senator Carl Levin, one of the most partisan Democrats in the upper chamber, if the attack was planned, Levin said it was. “I think there’s evidence of that. There’s been evidence of that,” he responded, adding: “The attack looked like it was planned and premeditated, sure.” Levin made his comments after a briefing from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
Representative Adam Smith, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, agreed. “This was not just a mob that got out of hand. Mobs don’t come in and attack, guns blazing. I think that there is a growing consensus it was preplanned.” And according to CNN, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy “has said that the attack appeared to be planned because it was so extensive and because of the ‘proliferation’ of small and medium weapons at the scene.” Not only was the attack planned, it appears there was no protest at all. Citing eyewitnesses, CBS News reported late last week: “There was never an anti-American protest outside the consulate.”
So we are left with this: Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened.
This isn’t just a problem. It’s a scandal.
If this were the first time top Obama officials had tried to sell a bogus narrative after an attack, perhaps they would deserve the benefit of the doubt. It’s not.
On December 28, 2009, three days after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate explosives in his underwear aboard an airliner over Detroit, President Obama told the country that the incident was the work of “an isolated extremist.” It wasn’t. Abdulmutallab was trained, directed, and financed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a fact he shared with investigators early in his interrogation.
The same thing happened less than six months later, after Faisal Shahzad attempted to blow up his Nissan Pathfinder in Times Square. Two days following the botched attack, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano took to the Sunday shows to dismiss reports of a conspiracy and insisted that the attempted bombing was just a “one-off” by a single attacker. It wasn’t. A week later, after much of the information had leaked, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that the United States had “evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack. We know that they helped facilitate it, we know that they probably helped finance it and that he was working at their direction.”
In each instance, top administration officials quickly downplayed or dismissed the seriousness of the events, only to acknowledge, after the shock had worn off and the media had turned to other news, that their initial stories were incorrect. Whether it was because the attempted attacks were unsuccessful or because the media simply lost interest, the administration largely escaped serious criticism for making claims that turned out to be wrong.
They’ve had mixed success this time. On the one hand, as the final elements of the administration’s story began to unravel in the middle of last week, the New York Times did not find those facts fit to print. On Thursday morning, the same day White House spokesman Jay Carney would finally admit that the Benghazi assault was “a terrorist attack,” the Times did not publish a story about Libya. It wasn’t as though it took serious digging to find the contradictions. One day earlier, Fox News had reported that intelligence officials were investigating the possibility that a former Guantánamo detainee had been involved in the attack. A story by Reuters raised questions about administration descriptions of the protests, noting “new information” that “suggests that the protests at the outset were so small and unthreatening as to attract little notice.” The story reported: “While many questions remain, the latest accounts differ from the initial information provided by the Obama administration, which had suggested that protests in front of the consulate over an anti-Islamic film had played a major role in precipitating the subsequent violent attack.” And CBS, as noted, reported that same day that there simply were no protests.
And what about the film? The Obama administration has sought to explain nearly everything that has happened over the past two weeks as a response to the video. President Obama denounced it during his remarks at the memorial for the four Americans killed in Libya. So did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. White House spokesman Jay Carney has mentioned it almost daily. At the end of last week, the United States spent $70,000 to buy ads in Pakistan to distance the U.S. government from its message.
That’s ironic. In its effort to deflect blame for the unrest, the administration has given more attention to this obscure film than it ever would have gotten if they’d simply ignored it. It’s true that radical Islamists used the film to help populate the 9/11 protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo. But they also told fellow radicals to join in a protest of the continued detention of Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh who was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. And some of the others who gathered were “Ultras”—soccer hooligans looking for trouble.
The American embassy in Cairo first drew attention to the film in its statement. And the administration—after initially distancing itself from that statement—has made it the centerpiece of its public relations campaign ever since, as protests spread to more than 20 countries. The result: Every Muslim with access to media is now aware of a bizarre video that had a few thousand views on YouTube on September 10.
That’s exactly what the radicals wanted, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the reporting on Egypt. The focus on the film was an “information operation” by jihadists designed to generate rage against America. If he’s right, it worked.
Barack Obama came to office promising to repair relations with the Islamic world. What he couldn’t accomplish by the mere fact of his presidency, through his name and his familiarity with Islam, he would achieve through “smart diplomacy.”
Instead, over the last four years, and particularly the last two weeks, the defining characteristics of his foreign policy have been mendacity, incompetence, and, yes, stupidity.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/permanent-spin_652887.html?page=1
@Billy - I'm looking forward to hearing from you when you do not have to be so reserved...
@Tony - great post, Stephan Hayes nails it!
@et all - The Benghazi attack aside, if a crappy online video can cause all this worldwide uproar with resulting protest... what do you think this Hollywierd movie depicting the killing of UBL set for release right after the presidential election starring the White House and featuring celebrities that were actually on the raid is going to do to the professionally indignant?
September 24, 2012
Middle East Madness
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services
Last week, Muslim mobs took to the streets to murder the American ambassador in Libya and three of his staffers. American embassies were attacked from Egypt to Yemen.
Embarrassed White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice insisted that these assaults were just reactions to an insensitive video circulating on the Internet that disparaged Islam. As embassies burned, we were assured that there was no animosity directed at America in general, or at this administration and its foreign policy in particular.
That is hogwash. The weeks-old video was a mere pretext, in the manner of the Danish cartoons that Islamists use to stir up mobs in their war against the West. The street rioting was long ago synchronized across the Middle East to celebrate the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Apparently, the administration was left stunned and without a clue about the latest Middle East madness.
President Obama chose not to support nearly a million Iranian dissidents in 2009. Two years later, he belatedly offered encouragement to the revolutionaries who overthrew Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak.
Yet those snubbed in Iran were far more likely to oppose radical Islam than the protestors who later put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Cairo.
Who, exactly, were we "leading from behind" in Libya? Muammar Gadhafi was a monster, but also one in a sort of rehab who was seeking better relations with the West.
As for Syria, the Obama administration has called dictator Bashar al-Assad a reformer. Then he became a mass murderer who had to step down. Then we called in Kofi Annan and the UN to practice soft-power diplomacy. Then we threatened to intervene. Now we have backed off.
As a candidate and as president, Obama assumed that his own multicultural politics, his familiarity with Islam, his novel transracial personal story and his repudiation of George W. Bush would all combine to win over the Middle East. Supposedly, Middle Eastern dislike of America had little to do with longstanding existential differences that did not start with Bush and won't end with Obama.
Obama's Al Arabiya interview, Cairo speech and loud reset diplomacy sent mixed messages. He gave the impression that Middle East anger was largely either America's fault or due to misunderstandings that the sensitive Obama alone could mitigate — as he distanced himself from the supposed pathologies of prior American policy in the region.
That myth-making is now discredited. But it still makes it hard for the administration to admit that hatred in Egypt is deep-seated and irrational — and has very little to do with a silly video. Those in the Arab street hate the West and America because they are told daily that our supposed godlessness and decadence should not make us so rich and powerful — especially when such pious believers as themselves are so poor and impotent.
But rather than addressing the real causes of their present misery — tribalism, misogyny, statism, corruption, authoritarianism, fundamentalism and religious intolerance — amid rich natural resources, Islamists scapegoat. Sometimes they fume at American support for Israel, at other times at an obscure video, cartoon, or rumor of a torched Koran.
We only feed these adolescent tantrums when America wrongly apologizes for the occasional insensitivity of a few of our citizens, who enjoy free speech under the US Constitution.
America looks even weaker when this administration sends confusing signals about US power. It too often spikes the ball — whether Joe Biden bragging about killing Osama bin Laden, the president joking about Predator assassination missions, Hillary Clinton high-fiving over the death of Gadhafi, or unnamed top officials disclosing classified secrets about the cyber-war against Iran.
Yet at other times, amid promised defense cuts, the Obama administration loudly announces a strategic pivot away from the Middle East toward Asia, or derides the very antiterrorism protocols — Guantanamo Bay, renditions, tribunals and preventative detention — that it later embraced.
Nothing is more dangerous in regard to the contemporary Middle East than misunderstanding the source of Islamist rage. Speaking loudly while carrying a small stick only makes that confusion worse.
What can we do?
Start developing vast new oil and gas finds on public lands here at home. Get our financial house in order. Quietly cut back aid to hostile Middle East governments. Put travel off-limits. Restrict visas and call home ambassadors — at least until Arab governments control their own street mobs.
Develop a consistent policy on the so-called Arab Spring that applies the same criticism of illiberal dictators to the theocrats who depose them. Keep quiet and keep our military strong. Don't apologize for a few Americans who have a right to be crude. Instead, condemn those premodern zealots who would murder anyone of whom they don't approve.
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson092412.html
Stargazer
09-26-2012, 08:39
September 24, 2012
Middle East Madness
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services
Start developing vast new oil and gas finds on public lands here at home. Get our financial house in order. Quietly cut back aid to hostile Middle East governments. Put travel off-limits. Restrict visas and call home ambassadors — at least until Arab governments control their own street mobs.
Develop a consistent policy on the so-called Arab Spring that applies the same criticism of illiberal dictators to the theocrats who depose them. Keep quiet and keep our military strong. Don't apologize for a few Americans who have a right to be crude. Instead, condemn those premodern zealots who would murder anyone of whom they don't approve.
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson092412.html
VDH is one I like to read. I would support the type of recommendations that VDH makes. They seem reasonable. I heard a expert (his name escapes me but I will add it once recalled**) said it should be called the Arab Awakening... he believes that is a better description v. Arab Spring.
Expert: Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Director for Study of Terrorist Radicalization at Fdn for Defense Democracies and author of the book, "Bin Laden Legacy - Why We're Still Losing the War on Terror". I know nothing about him beyond what you can pick up on an internet search. When I heard him speak on a talk show, he was responding to the recent unrest in ME / Libya/Egypt. Again, what he said sounded reasonable to someone looking for answers like myself.
If it was the movie that made 'em do it...is it the way she dresses makes 'em rape???
So, which party is waging that war on women?
The video caused it - is an attempt at myth-making...
"...the real causes of their present misery — tribalism, misogyny, statism, corruption, authoritarianism, fundamentalism and intolerance — amid rich natural resources, Islamists scappegoat. Sometimes they fume at American support for Israel, at other times at an obscure video, cartoon, or rumor of a torched Koran. Nothing is more dangerous in regard to the contemporary Middle East than misunderstanding the source of Islamist rage. Speaking loudly while carrying a small stick only makes that confusion worse."
There seems to be little question that the MSM has become a propaganda arm for the current Democratic Party generally, and Obama, specifically.
What is interesting is when a former insider (IIRC, Pat Caddell worked for Carter, among others) becomes disgusted with what he sees.
The short video very briefly touches on the Libya murders - placing it in this thread - but the observations by Caddell appear to apply across the spectrum of MSM reporting and omissions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBR4g6cBYeA&sns=em
ETA: FWIW just watched the long version and IMO Caddell does touch on some interesting matters of concern.
The video caused it - is an attempt at myth-making...
No kidding…
Although the movie had nothing to do with 09/11/12, SCOTUS already defined free speech which may be relevant to some in this situation, 343 U.S. 495 - Burstyn v. Wilson.
“It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures, or to protect any or all religions from views which are distasteful to them."
> http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/495/case.html
Dear Chairman Obama, the “constitutional scholar,” didn’t get the memo…
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPKf5IUGn_Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBR4g6cBYeA&sns=em
Caddell is spot on... :cool:
Team Sergeant
09-30-2012, 00:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPKf5IUGn_Y
Caddell is spot on... :cool:
I agree, Caddell is spot on.
You know that saying that in any successful revolution you must "kill all the lawyers" Its 2012, and time to add the media to that list.....
MrBox2113
09-30-2012, 05:19
What is also evident - and has been for some time - is that far too many of our current political leaders and mouth pieces are naive fools, liars, or both.
I would have to agree with you. Honestly though when we step back from all this, everything that is going on you can honestly only come to two conclusions. That they have no idea what is going on and are completely ignorant (I do not believe this to be the case). OR they know exactly what is going on and are allowing it to happen. I believe this to be true considering things like the great Mr. Holder and the administration not releasing the Holy Land Foundation documents to congress or the people of the US, However they did release them to the terrorists and those that were indicted. Treachery is afoot if you ask me.
I would have to agree with you. Honestly though when we step back from all this, everything that is going on you can honestly only come to two conclusions. That they have no idea what is going on and are completely ignorant (I do not believe this to be the case). OR they know exactly what is going on and are allowing it to happen. I believe this to be true considering things like the great Mr. Holder and the administration not releasing the Holy Land Foundation documents to congress or the people of the US, However they did release them to the terrorists and those that were indicted. Treachery is afoot if you ask me.
Agreed - and thank you for your link to the MB Project in another thread.
Obama's self stated "fundamental transformation" of the country requires accomplices...if he is reelected...how does Supreme Court justice nominee Hillary Clinton or Eric Holder sound?? That type of damage could potentially last for decades.
Roll on November.
MrBox2113
09-30-2012, 13:28
Agreed - and thank you for your link to the MB Project in another thread.
Obama's self stated "fundamental transformation" of the country requires accomplices...if he is reelected...how does Supreme Court justice nominee Hillary Clinton or Eric Holder sound?? That type of damage could potentially last for decades.
Roll on November.
No problem. Honestly I think we need as many people as possible screaming this stuff from the rooftops. Being the watchmen on the wall like in the days of Ezekial before Israel fell.